Your Universal Remote Control Center
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from


Original thread:
Post 72 made on Friday October 4, 2013 at 07:30
Super Member
October 2005
On October 4, 2013 at 02:47, Mogul said...
I'm beginning to wonder if you think "logical canard" means "empirical truth that does not jibe with my own political and societal ideology." ;-)

Ask a few doctors if their exhorbitant annual malpractice insurance fees--necessitated by unchecked litigation or threat thereof--are just a "logical canard..." I'm guessing they'll explain that malpractice insurance fees are tangible cost drivers that they pass on to us patients.

It appears it is you who's ideology doesn't reconcile with reality and accepts an oft repeated canard. Until you can provide some real credible information that malpractice litigation is a key driver of the high cost of health care I'm going to give this notion the respect it deserves, which is calling it a canard. That's what it is.

On the other hand, the notion of "private sector health care" IS very much a "logical canard." Calling our health care system "private sector" is like calling particiption in the federal income tax system "voluntary." In truth, we've not experienced "private sector" (i.e. free market) medical care provision in this country for 50+ years.

You just destroyed a large amount of resistance to Obamacare: ie 'Socialism'

You argue that the "private sector" (i.e. free market) has failed us and that we must abandon the free market model. I argue that the government destroyed the medical free market decades ago and that we are suffering the ravages of corporatism and governmental overreach.

I did not say we must abandon the free market model. I challenged a notion: that does not mean I beleve some supposed direct opposite of it.

The current changes to health care are not an abandonment of the free market any more than they are 'Socialism!'

Given the precarious financial state of EVERY government entitlement and given government's structural inhibitors to innovation, I assert that injecting more government into our health care market will inevitably kill both the patient and the doctor.

Yes, I understand your assertion. I challenge it. There are many challenges to the 'government = structural inhibitors to innovation' comment (NASA, energy, space, this very internet we're arguing on), not to mention I've worked with or for private sector companies that were wasteful, slow, and not particularly innovative. The concept that the government is slow, too expensive, and ineffectually vs the private sector is an article of faith oft repeated but never really provable beyond simple assertions or anecdote (the IRS sucks!) By and large the government doesn't compete with the private sector.

This does not mean I assert the equal opposite contention, only that I challenge the original assertion, especially in response to health care.

Hosting Services by ipHouse